Hiroshima: The Decision to Drop the Bomb

The History Channel ^ | May 6, 2004 | The History Channel

[walford]

"An investigation, based on newly released documents, into President Truman's controversial decision to drop the A-bomb. Concludes that the real reason the U.S. dropped the bomb was to intimidate the Soviet Union."

Several 'experts' explained that dropping the A-bombs on Japan were unnecessary [there were no dissenting points of view aired]. The announcer -- bearing an English accent -- explained that the reasons that Truman decided to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki were:

1. A raving desire for revenge on the part of the American people. 2. To use the opportunity to 'experiment' the new weapon on an expendable population. 3. To demonstrate to the USSR that America is not to be messed with. 4. The bombs were unnecessary, because the Japanese were about to surrender anyway.

[PogySailor]

This is History Channel revisionism. The casualties that would have been incured to take the home islands of the Empire would have made Iwo Jima and Okinawa seem trivial.

Even after the firebombing of Tokyo which killed over 80,000 people the Japanese military would not surrender.

In fact they resisted surrender even after two atomic strikes. Here is a good article from a surprising author on the subject.

[COEXERJ145]

According to the History Channel special about the planned invasion of the home islands, the US has not ordered any new Purple Hearts since 1945. We are still using what the war planners ordered in preparation for the invasion of Japan. That is plain scary...

Actually, we just recently ordered new ones. The show is a few years out of date. However, the Purple Hearts prepared for the invasion of Japan lasted us through Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, and every other small conflict in between.

[COEXERJ145]

Think about it, the historians are the ones that came out publicly against the Clinton Impeachment. "Historians" is becoming a moniker for leftist idiots.

Not this historian.

[A Jovial Cad]

My grandfather was a Pacific War Veteran (1942-'45).
In late July, 1945, as MacArthur was planning Olympic & Coronet (the planned land invasion of the Japanese Isles), he related that everyone in his squadron (5th Air Force, 49th Fighter Group, 8th Pursuit Squadron) just assumed that they would all soon be dead in that attempt. They were projecting 100%--note that, please: 100%!--aircrew casualties by D+30 in the briefings they where being given. The Atomic bombs--Hiroshima & Nagasaki--saved his, and hundreds of thousands of American lives--and millions of Japanese casualties. So he maintained to his dying day--and I believe him.
I don't really care what the "motivations" where for doing it (though I doubt the "History" channel is telling the unrefined truth)--Harry was right, and I'm glad we dropped them.
EOM

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Yeah my Dad was on his way to some sort of staging area when the little darlings surrendered. The survival rate among TBF flyers and crew was not too high.

[VOA]

Think about it, the historians are the ones that came out publicly against the Clinton Impeachment.

What's scary is that it's not just history professors thus affected.
I remember John McLauglin interviewing a molecular biology prof (Oxford or Cambridge)
who did a lot of the work on the Thomas Jefferson fatherhood of slave-children
questions.
McLaughlin just about had to twist the guy's arm to admit the science didn't PROVE
Th. Jefferson did the deed...it just failed to exclude him from the potential pool of fathers.

But this same molecular biologist was admanant that Thomas Jefferson had most
certainly had fathered the children "because of the science and the history".
In-freakin'-credible.

[VOA]

Think about it, the historians are the ones that came out publicly against the Clinton Impeachment.

What's scary is that it's not just history professors thus affected.
I remember John McLauglin interviewing a molecular biology prof (Oxford or Cambridge)
who did a lot of the work on the Thomas Jefferson fatherhood of slave-children
questions.
McLaughlin just about had to twist the guy's arm to admit the science didn't PROVE
Th. Jefferson did the deed...it just failed to exclude him from the potential pool of fathers.

But this same molecular biologist was admanant that Thomas Jefferson had most
certainly had fathered the children "because of the science and the history".
In-freakin'-credible.

[LibKill]

Given:

1. The Japanese habit of fighting to the last man.

2. The horrendous casualties of the island campaigns.

3. The then-new horror of men who would blow themselves up to kill their enemies (kamikazis).

4. The (righteous) resentment of the sneak attack at Pearl Harbor.

The use of the atomic bomb was inevitable. If there had been a more powerful weapon it would have been used.

I think Truman made the right decision.

[Moose4]

Speaking as someone whose father was sitting in the Philippines in August 1945, and who had already been told he was going to be part of either Operation Coronet or Operation Olympic...I don't care why they dropped them. I'm just damn glad they did, because without them, I doubt I'd be here.

}:-)4

[Rebelbase]

I read an article that stated there was a plan to use Abombs to blow breeches in the Japanese defenses so that our troops could break out of the beachheads.

How many US troops would have succombed to radiation poisoning had we used the Bombs that way?

[COEXERJ145]

The idea of using it as a "test" is absurd--

The "test" some people wanted, mostly scientists at Los Alamos and Oak Ridge, was to explode the bomb off the coast of Japan in order to demonstrate the power of the bomb without killing people. Since we only had enough Uranium-235 for one bomb (Little Boy) and enough Plutonium for three "Fat Man" style bombs (although Hanford was producing enough were by late Sept. we could have 3 or 4 bombs per month) it was decided not to offer a demonstration.

The theory behind the Uranium gun weapon (Little Boy) was so simple the scientists knew it would work without testing. They had to test the plutonium bomb in order to make sure it worked. This left the U.S. with enough plutonium for more bombs. One was Fat Man which detonated over Nagasaki with a yield of 20-22 kilotons. Col. Tibbets had sent several B-29's back to the U.S. after Nagasaki in order to pick up the next bomb but Gen. Groves halted the shipment to see if the Japanese would surrender.

the device had already been tested on New Mexico in July 1945.

And I took the tour of Trinity just last month. For a historian who has focused on atomic history, it was a blast. No pun intended. LOL

[kennedy]

For whatever reason these “experts” give, the fact of the matter is the Nips surrendered after we dropped the bomb.

Actually, they didn't.

The Japenese refused to surrender until we dropped TWO bombs AND bluffed them into believing that we had the capacity to keep dropping them.

[Young Werther]

I would suggest that you read Truman's AUTOBIOGRAPHY.

He discuses his decision at length. Truman understood his options and had he wanted to make a statement without destroying a Japanese city he might have considered Oppenheimer's suggestion that an uninhabited Pacific island be used to "scare" the world!!

The manner in which the targets were selected demonstrated the humane manner in which this decision was reached. For Example, Kyoto was not on the target list because it was a religious site which might infuriate the Japenese. Hiroshima had not received much bomb damage, (while more people were burned to death in the Tokyo firebomb raids carried out by LeMay's B-29s) and it was the home to a homeland defense garrison. This argument goes on and on and hasn't changed much in 60 years. I enjoy the History channel, (BA History!!) but I've found some of the shows to be sloppily produced. When this happens, I just click over to another show!

[southland]

If Pearl Harbor had not happened the bomb on Hiroshima would not have happened.

[GATOR NAVY]

it's an absolute certainty that several MILLION Japanese would have died over the winter of 45/46 from starvation. A lot more than died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

But that would have been ok because they would have died naturally and not killed by the evil atomic bombs. </lefty-peacenik mode>

[Jorge]

I'm 49. My dad went in about 1946 or 47 too.

Same here. I'm also 49 and my Dad went in around 1946 and flew numerous bombing missions out of England.

[Springman]

Bump for later.

[jpsb]

"dropping the A-bombs on Japan were unnecessary"

Someone forgot to tell Mac Author, in 45 he was planing the invasion of Japan and not looking forward to the lose of American life it would entailed.

[COEXERJ145]

I enjoy the History channel, (BA History!!) but I've found some of the shows to be sloppily produced.

Same here. However, I enjoy finding all the mistakes I can. Most are minor, but some stand out screaming "HERE I AM!"

The best show on the History Channel is "Mail Call"! As a note, Kyoto was saved by Sec. of War Stimson who felt because it "was the ancient capital of Japan, a historical city, and one that was of great religious significance to the Japanese." Incidentally, he had also spent his honeymoon in Kyoto many years earlier. However, by taking Kyoto off the target list, (something that ticked off Gen. Groves and the committee picking targets because they felt Kyoto had the best topography that would not less the effects of the blast) the city became a target for LeMay and his B-29 firebomb raids. So in order to protect it, they "officially" kept it on the list of atomic targets but never planned to actually bomb it. Only the five cities on the targeting list were off limits to LeMay, Hiroshima, Yokohama, the Kokura Arsenal (primary target of Bock's Car), Niigata, and Nagasaki.

[A Jovial Cad]

And your point? (I'm already pretty sure I know what it is, but go ahead and expound on the theme).